J.Antony Jayaraj Vs The Management

25.K.Gowthaman 26.C.Rajan 27.D.Harikrishnan 28.A.Gopalan 29.C.Nagaraj 30.M.Kumar 31.N.Ramachandran 32.M.Jayavel 33.S.Sankara Narayanan 34.P.John Arockia Raj 35.A.Jayasankar 36.S.Balaji 37.V.Anumandharasu 38.J.Frango Suthesh 39.K.Alagesan 40.R.Velmurugan 41.P.Nagarajan 42.P.Pattamuthu 43.A.Gomathi Sankar 44.S.Pethuraj 45.M.Vijayakumar 46.D.Chidambaram 47.K.Balaji 48.J.Sarathi 49.R.Gopi 50.R.Sankar 51.T.Senthilkumar 52.J.Stalin 53.P.Vinayagam 54.J.Suresh Kumar 55.M.Kesavan 56.V.N.Raja 57.S.Maharajan 58.K.Kannan 59.P.Mathivanan

¶34

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶35

2

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

60.K.Suresh Kumar 61.B.Raghu Raman 62.G.R.Ramkumar 63.D.Senthilkumar 64.G.Navaneethan 65.A.Nandhagopal 66.E.Mathavan 67.G.Nagesh 68.V.Vadivelu 69.G.Kumar 70.H.Arun Karry 71.P.Saravanaraja 72.T.Rajan Joshua 73.S.Suresh 74.P.Ramdoss 75.S.Arul Selvam 76.S.M.Vasanthakumar 77.S.Sankar 78.V.Suresh 79.D.Balaji 80.S.Vimal Raj 81.R.Bhakkiyaraj 82.P.Logesh 83.V.Prakash 84.C.Muneeswaran 85.A.Ponmuthu Ramalingam 86.L.Jagatheesan 87.M.Prakash Raj 88.S.Selvakumar 89.N.Mohamed Ghouse 90.N.B.Byju 91.M.Muthusamy 92.S.P.Prakash 93.S.Manivasagam 94.V.Maheswaran

¶38

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶39

3

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶42

95.T.Sundara Rajan 96.T.Anto Lion Raj 97.D.Sugumaran 98.K.Vadivel 99.L.Purushothaman 100.S.Hari Prasath 101.N.Shanmugam 102.G.Elumalai 103.G.Sivasubramaniyan 104.V.Suresh 105.S.chinnappan 106.T.Murugan 107.M.Ranjith Prabu 108.R.Rakesh Sharma 109.C.Tamilselvan

¶43

.. Petitioners

¶44

- Vs –

¶45

The Management Hyundai Motor India Ltd. N.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Kancheepuram 602 117.

¶46

.. Respondent

¶47

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

¶48

this Court to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records related to the impugned award in ID Nos.320 to 330, 332 to 338, 340 to 368, 370, 412, 414 to 435, 437 to 439, 441 to 453, 455, 456, 458 to 472, 474 to 476, 478 and 765 of 2018 dated 29.05.2019 by the Labour Court at Kancheepuram and

¶49

4

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶52

quash the same as it held non-employment to be justified and denied our claim

¶53

for reinstatement, backwages and all other attendant benefits and consequently

¶54

to direct the respondent to reinstate us as permanent workers with continuity of

¶55

service, backwages and all other attendant benefits.

¶56

For Petitioners : Mr. S.Kumarasamy For Respondent : Mr. S.Ravindran, SC, for M/s. D.Abdullah

¶57

ORDER

¶58

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the respective industrial disputes raised by

¶59

the petitioners praying reinstatement, continuity of service and backwages, being aggrieved by the order of termination issued by the respondent, the present writ

¶60

petition has been filed by the petitioners.

¶61

It is the case of the petitioners that they underwent vocational training in various disciplines and based on the national trade certificate issued, they joined the respondent as apprentice under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 and underwent apprenticeship training period between 2003 and 2004. Thereafter, the petitioners completed the trade test conducted by the National Council for

¶62

5

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶64

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶65

vocational training and were issued with the Apprenticeship certificate. The petitioners, upon completion of the course had joined the respondent as apprentice.

¶66

It is the further case of the petitioners that they were recruited as

¶67

trainee under the Hyundai Trade Apprentice Scheme for a period of 12 months on various dates in the year 2006-2007 as technician trainee grade TT2. It is the further case of the petitioners that they were informed that their candidature will be considered for advanced training as technician trainee TT3 subject to their good and satisfactory performance. During the period of training the petitioners were paid wages comprising of basic pay, conveyance, night shift allowance, uniform allowance and other allowances and during the said period, the petitioners were also provided with overtime work. It is the further averment of the petitioners that the overtime work was not overtime training, as the pay slip of the petitioners do not denote such a condition and that the status of the workmen of the respondent is akin to the one defined u/s 2 (s) of the Industrial

¶68

Disputes Act.

¶69

6

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶72

It is the further averment of the petitioners that upon completion of

¶73

their training, the petitioners were neither relieved nor their training extended and the petitioners were not provided with appointment letter. The petitioners were given further training as TT3 trainee, without any order in writing, but out of blue, by the respective communication, citing difficult economic scenario, the training of the petitioners were abruptly halted.

¶74

It is the further averment of the petitioners that they have undergone sufficient and substantial training as apprentice and had completed 480 days of continuous service from March, 2006 and, thereby, the respondent ought to have conferred permanent status on the petitioners, but without any performance appraisal and without making the petitioners permanent, the petitioners were relieved from training.

¶75

It is the further averment of the petitioners that they raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer and before the said authority, the respondent took a stand that it is only account of the request of the petitioners that they were put to more intensive training for one more year and it

¶76

7

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶78

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶79

is not at the behest of the respondent. Since no consensus was arrived at, the dispute was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court.

¶80

Before the Labour Court, on the side of the petitioners, witnesses were examined and documents were marked and on the side of the employer/respondent, one witness was examined and documents were marked. Though the Labour Court held that the workmen/petitioners have put in more than 480 days of continuous service, however, a dispute is not maintainable

¶81

before the Labour Court and the petitioners ought to have gone before the authority for conferment of permanent status and, therefore, dismissed the dispute aggrieved by which the present writ petition has been filed.

¶82

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners were stated to be trainees, but in effect, no training was given and the petitioners were made to do the work done by a permanent employee, which clearly shows that work was taken from the petitioners under the garb of trainee, though they were actually doing permanent work.

¶83

8

¶84

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶85

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶86

It is the further submission of the learned counsel that termination of the petitioners would amount retrenchment u/s 25-G, 25-H and 25-N and when persons junior to the petitioners have been retained in service, which is in violation of Section 25-H of the Act, the termination of the petitioners would only partake the character of retrenchment and definitely they are entitled to raise a dispute and the finding of the Labour Court that it cannot adjudicate the issue of permanency, which has to be done by the appropriate authority, is grossly misconceived and erroneous.

¶87

It is the further submission of the learned counsel, adverting to the Certified Standing Orders of the respondent that the clauses therein, clearly establish that all persons allowed inside the premises are workman, who is issued with an appointment order in writing and an identity card. The petitioners are armed with an apprentice appointment order and Trainee-II appointment order, which is not disputed by the respondent and which are in fact issued by the respondent and that being the case, the petitioners are deemed to be employees on the rolls of the respondent.

¶88

9

¶89

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶90

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶91

It is the further submission of the learned counsel that 3.3.2008 and

¶92

23.12.2008, without any letter the services of the petitioners were continued as TT3, which clearly shows that the petitioners were working as employee under the respondent.

¶93

It is the further submission of the learned counsel that Exs.W-7 and W- 8, the apprentice appointment order and Trainee-II appointment order issued by the respondent to the petitioners clearly establish that the petitioners were indeed been appointed and, therefore, any termination of the petitioners have to be strictly in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act. However, without following any of the provisions of the Act relating to termination, the services of the petitioners were arbitrarily terminated, which fact, though has been established before the Labour Court and had been accepted by the Labour Court, yet, on a technicality, the Labour Court has refrained to pass an order of permanency, but ordered a lumpsum compensation, which is erroneous and the same requires interference at the hands of this Court.

¶94

10

¶95

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶96

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶97

In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the

¶98

petitioners placed reliance on the following decisions :-

¶99

i) Bharat Bank Ltd. – Vs – Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd. (AIR 1950 SC 188);

¶100

ii) Eveready Flash Light Company – Vs – Labour Court & Ors. (1961 (2) LLJ 204);

¶101

iii) Umrala Gram Panchayat – Vs – The Secretary, Municipal employee Union (C.A. No.3209-3210/2015 – Dated 27.3.2015);

¶102

iv) Gawrishankar – Vs – State of Rajasthan (C.A. No.3701/2015 – Dated 16.04.2015); and

¶103

v) Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar – Vs – Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors. (AIR 1968 SC 1413)

¶104

Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent

¶105

submits that the petitioners were engaged as apprentice under the Apprenticeship Act for a period of one year in February, 2006 for a period of 12 months and later vide Ex.W-8, the training period was extended for a period of one year as a technical trainee.

¶106

11

¶107

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶108

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶109

It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that nowhere

¶110

the petitioners have been appointed as a workman by means of an order of appointment, but the appointment is only as an apprentice under the Apprenticeship Act and the period was extended twice for training purpose. The petitioners have not been utilised for any production activity and if at all the petitioners claim that they were employed as permanent workmen and were utilised to discharge duties related to production, the petitioners ought to establish the same, which alone would form the basis of their claim and there being no material to show that the petitioners were involved in production activities, the claim of the petitioners were rightly negatived.

¶111

It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that contrarily, Exs.W-7, W-8 and W-9 produced by the workmen clearly establish that the petitioners were engaged as trainee and they were not involved in performing any work of a permanent workman in a permanent post between February, 2006 and December, 2008. When the petitioners were only given training and were not involved in any permanent production activities, and their names having not been included in the Form L, which has been submitted with

¶112

12

¶113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶114

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶115

the concerned authorities, the claim of the petitioners for permanent status is wholly unsustainable and any number of decisions relating to the power of the Labour Court to adjudicate on the permanency of the petitioners cannot cure the defect, which is writ large in the petitions and, therefore, the decisions relied on by the petitioners are inapplicable to the facts of the case.

¶116

It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that Exs.M-2 to M-5 filed by the respondents clearly establish the reduced production activities in the plant of the respondents and, therefore, there was no necessity for the respondents to involve the petitioner in the production activities. It is the further submission that no materials have been placed by the petitioners to show discrimination with regard to alleged confirmation of certain trainees so as to claim equality. When there is no material filed by the petitioners to substantiate that there is discrimination, the mere allegation will not partake the character of proof to consider the case of the petitioners for an equal treatment.

¶117

It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the petitioners being mere trainees, there is no necessity for a show cause notice

¶118

13

¶119

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶120

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶121

before terminating them and the petitioners being trainees, question of

¶122

reinstatement also does not arise.

¶123

It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel that the

¶124

Labour Court, exercising its power to award compensation for termination u/s

¶125

25-F of the Act, had granted compensation for every completed year of service

¶126

and, therefore, the petitioners cannot have any grievance and rightly appreciating all the above, the Labour Court has dismissed the disputes, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶127

In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel placed

¶128

reliance on the following decisions :-

¶129

i) Registrar – Vs – Shashikant S.Patil & Ors. (2000 (1) SCC 4116);

¶130

ii) H.R.Adyanthaya & Ors. – Vs – Sandoz (India) Ltd. & Ors. (1994 (5) SCC 737);

¶131

iii) Mukesh K.Tripathi – Vs – Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC & Ors. ( 2004 (8) SCC 387);

¶132

iv) Management of TI Diamond Chain Ltd. – Vs – Presiding Officer (2002 (3) LLN 529 (MHC));

¶133

14

¶134

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶135

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶136

vi) M. Venkatesh – Vs – The Presiding Officer, Labour Court (2003 (1) LLJ 1011 (MHC));

¶137

vii) Jayanthi – Vs – Presiding Offiver, Vellore (2002 (2) LLN 1164 (MHC));

¶138

viii) Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. – Vs – Bhola Singh (2005 (2) SCC 320);

¶139

ix) Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. Of India Pvt. Ltd. – Vs – Workmen (1981 (1) LLJ 218 (SC));

¶140

x) State of Punjab – Vs – Labour Court, Jullunder (1981 (1) LLJ 354 (SC);

¶141

xi) Karur Srinidhi Yaarn Mills Ltd. – Vs – Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories & Anr.(2011 (1) LLJ 533 (MHC));

¶142

xii) T.S.Shanmuganathan & Ors. – Vs – Dy. Chief Inspector of Factories & Anr. (W.A. No.914/2007 – Dated 5.2.2008 (MHC));

¶143

xiii) Sonepat Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. – Vs – Rakesh Kumar (2005 (13) SCC 578);

¶144

xiv) Jagadish Kumar & Ors. – Vs – State of HP & Ors. (2005 (13) SCC 606);

¶145

xv) Hindustan Photo Films & Anr. – Vs – H.B.Vinobha (2009 (3) LLN 6);

¶146

xvi) Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation – Vs – Salimbhai Umarbhai Mansuri (2013 (14) SCC 456);

¶147

15

¶148

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶149

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶150

xvii) Sita Ram & Ors. – Vs – Motilal Nehru Farmers Training Institute (2008 (5) SCC 75);

¶151

xviii) State of MP & Anr. – Vs – Vinod Kumar Tiwari (2016 (16) SCC 610); and

¶152

xix) Rashtrasant Tukdojji Maharaj Technical Education Sanstha – Vs – Prashanth Manikrao Kubitkar (2018 (12) SCC 294)

¶153

This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced

¶154

by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶155

There is no quarrel with the fact that the petitioners had completed their Trade Apprentice course and were issued with necessary National Apprenticeship Certificate. Thereafter, the petitioners had undergone training on the basis of Exs.W-7 and W-8, Trade Apprentice Appointment Order and as Trainee-II appointment order. Based on the above training the petitioners claim that on and from February, 2008 to December, 2008, they were being under employment in continuation of the employment and were involved in the day today affairs of the production activities of the respondent and, therefore, their

¶156

16

¶157

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶158

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶159

continuance beyond the period of 480 days entitles them to a permanent status with the respondent.

¶160

The above sequence of events clearly reveal that initially the petitioners have been put on training for the first year, which had been subsequently extended for further training for a period of another one year. Thereafter, the claim of the petitioners is that they were continued in their employment but there is no letter of appointment with regard to the said extension. Even otherwise, it is to be pointed out that with regard to the appointment of the petitioners in the rolls of the respondent, there is no material evidencing the said appointment. Except for Exs.W-7 and W-8, which are appointment orders with regard to training as an apprentice, there is no other material, which shows that the petitioners were appointed in the rolls of the respondent.

¶161

Equally, there is no material evidencing that the work of regular employees was extracted from the petitioners. Though the petitioners claim that they were made to work, in the absence of any material to show that they had

¶162

17

¶163

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶164

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶165

discharged the said duties, the mere word of the petitioners would not suffice to hold anything in the affirmative in favour of the petitioners.

¶166

Even Ex.W-9, the pay slip given to the petitioners for the previous month prior to his termination during November, 2008, the petitioners have been designated only as trainee and they have not been shown as employees of

¶167

the respondent. Therefore, the said documents clearly establish that the petitioners have never been appointed by the respondents, but they have been under training with the respondents and, therefore, the termination of the petitioners would not come within the ambit of retrenchment as the termination of the petitioners have been done as per the terms of the contract and, therefore, shelter under Section 2 (oo) of the Act cannot be taken and the question of reinstatement of the petitioners therefore will not arise.

¶168

Further, it is not the case of the petitioners that under the contract of training, there was any condition that upon completion of training, they would be absorbed by the respondent as permanent employee. When there is no obligation cast on the respondent to absorb the petitioners upon completion of

¶169

18

¶170

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶171

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶172

training, the training period cannot be reckoned for the purpose of granting permanency under the Permanent Status Act. When the petitioners, with open

¶173

eyes, though with dreams, have joined the training with the respondent, the respondent cannot be mulcted with responsibility to absorb the petitioners, when there was no obligation on the part of the respondent for such absorption. There is no material to infer as such and, therefore, the Labour Court was rightly justified in not acceding to the prayer of the petitioners.

¶174

When the petitioners have been undergoing only training, they cannot claim permanency under the Permanent Status Act. True it is that the power of the Labour Court to grant permanency to the petitioners under the Permanent Status Act is available, but it could be exercised only when all the ingredients for granting such status stood satisfied. In the present case, the petitioners are mere trainees under a contract and, therefore, invoking the provisions of the Permanent Status Act to grant permanency cannot be granted by the Labour Court, as exercise of such power would be arbitrary, unreasonable and against the provisions of the Permanent Status Act. Therefore, rightly, the Labour Court

¶175

19

¶176

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶177

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶178

has rejected the claim of the petitioners for permanent status, which cannot be

¶179

found fault with.

¶180

However, the Labour Court considering the fact that the petitioners have been under training for about 35 months with very many colourful dreams of continuous employment with the respondent and considering the age of the petitioners and also the beneficial nature of legislation, had thought it fit to grant a lumpsum compensation to the petitioners by computing the same from the last wages drawn by them and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/to each of the petitioners. The said exercise of payment of compensation undertaken by the Labour Court is within the bounds of propriety under the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶181

However, this Court is ordained with the task of finding out whether the amount awarded by the Labour Court, in the present scenario, is just and reasonable. At the material point of time, when the petitioners were terminated from their training, they were aged between 25 and 30 years. The dispute was raised in which an order had come to be passed in the year 2019. By now, a

¶182

20

¶183

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶184

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶185

period of almost six years have passed and the petitioners have moved from their prime and they have not been paid any amount. However, it is informed that certain other persons, who had undergone training and who were also similarly terminated were awarded sums in excess of Rs.6 Lakhs by the respondent. That being the case, considering the period that has elapsed by now, the petitioners should be recipient of an enhanced amount, which alone would be a just and equitable relief. In the above backdrop of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that a sum of Rs.8,00,000/= (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) per person would be a just and reasonable amount in the present day scenario.

¶186

For the reasons aforesaid, this Court while not finding any error or infirmity in the order of dismissal and confirms the same, however, for the reasons specified in the preceding paragraph enhances the compensation to Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) per petitioner to be paid by the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount would carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of termination of the petitioners till date of payment. The writ petition is

¶187

21

¶188

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶189

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶190

dismissed with the aforesaid modification in compensation. There shall be no

order as to costs.

04.06.2025

Index : Yes / No GLN

22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶196

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶197

To

¶198

The Presiding Officer Labour Court Kancheepuram.

¶199

23

¶200

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶201

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶202

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶203

GLN

¶204

PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN W.P. NO. 26212 OF 2019

¶205

Pronounced on 04.06.2025

¶206

24

¶207

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶208

W.P. NO. 26212 OF 2019

¶209

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶210

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶211

This writ petition is listed today at the instance of the learned counsel for

¶212

the respondent.

¶213

It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that a memo was filed before the Court, wherein the details of 15 petitioners were given to whom full and final settlement has been made in terms of the award and, therefore, this Court may record the said memo and permit the respondent to make the settlement only in respect of the other petitioners, barring the 15 persons shown in the memo. Learned senior counsel further submits that the counsel on either side have subscribed their signature to the said memo.

¶214

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submit that the said

¶215

memo was filed and this Court may record the receipt of the amount by the petitioners, whose names have been shown in the memo and direct that

¶216

25

¶217

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶218

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶219

settlement in terms of the order dated 4.6.2025 may be made in respect of the

¶220

other petitioners.

¶221

Though it is submitted that a memo to the aforesaid effect has been filed, however, there is no copy available in the bundle. A copy of the memo was placed before this Court, though unsigned by the learned counsel on either side, but who fairly submit that the memo is the copy of the original which was submitted before this Court, the said memo is taken on record. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel on either side, para-30 of the order dated 4.6.2025 shall stand substituted with the following :-

¶222

“For the reasons aforesaid, this Court while not

¶223

finding any error or infirmity in the order of dismissal and confirms the same, however, for the reasons specified in

¶224

the preceding paragraph enhances the compensation to Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) per petitioner,

¶225

except in respect of the 15 petitioners, whose names are shown in the joint memo aforesaid, to be paid by the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date

¶226

26

¶227

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶228

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶229

of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount would carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of termination of the petitioners till date of payment. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in compensation. The unsigned memo, which has been filed before this Court today, viz., 10.06.2025 shall form

¶230

part of the records. There shall be no order as to costs.“

¶231

.”

¶232

Registry is directed to make the aforesaid correction in the order dated

¶233

4.6.2025 while issuing order copy to the parties.

10.06.2025

GLN

27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶238

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶239

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶240

GLN

¶241

W.P. NO.26212 OF 2019

¶242

10.06.2025

¶243

28

¶244

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶245

W.P. NO. 26212 OF 2019

¶246

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶247

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

¶248

This writ petition is listed today at the instance of the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶249

It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent that on 10.06.2025, when the matter was listed for being mentioned, it was erroneously stated that 15 petitioners were given full and final settlement as has been mentioned in the memo, but actually it is 16 persons, which includes the petitioner at S. No.19. Therefore, he prays that necessary modification may be made in para-30 of the order dated 4.6.2025, which has subsequently been modified on 10.6.2025 and a fresh order copy may be issued.

¶250

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has no objection to

¶251

carrying out the aforesaid modification in para-30 of the order dated 4.6.2025 which was subsequently modified on 10.6.2025.

¶252

29

¶253

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶254

____________ W.P. No.26212/2019

¶255

In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel on either side, para-30

¶256

of the order dated 4.6.2025, which was subsequently modified on 10.6.2025, shall stand substituted with the following :-

¶257

“ 30. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court while not

¶258

finding any error or infirmity in the order of dismissal and

¶259

confirms the same, however, for the reasons specified in

¶260

the preceding paragraph enhances the compensation to

¶261

Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) per petitioner,

¶262

except in respect of the 16 petitioners, whose names are shown in the joint memo aforesaid, which includes the petitioner at S. No.19 of the writ petition, to be paid by

¶263

the respondent within a period of four weeks from the

¶264

date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount would carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date

¶265

of termination of the petitioners till date of payment. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid modification

¶266

in compensation. The unsigned memo, which has been

¶267

30

¶268

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis